UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO 

EASTERN DIVISION 

Richard Lance Williams, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

Michael J. Astrue, Commissioner of 

Social Security, 

Defendant. 

OPINION AND ORDER 

Case No. 2:11-cv-822 

Judge Watson 

Magistrate Judge Abel 

On April 16, 2012, Magistrate Judge Abel issued a Report and Recommendation 

in this case which recommended the Court affirm the Administrative Law Judge's 

("ALJ") decision. ECF No. 15. Plaintiff objects to all of Magistrate Judge Abel's 

findings. ECF No. 17. For the following reasons, the Court finds Plaintiff's objections to 

the Report and Recommendation are without merit and adopts the recommendations of 

Magistrate Judge Abel. 

Plaintiff Richard Lance Williams ("Plaintiff' or "Williams"), who was 40 years old 

at the time of the hearing before the ALJ, maintains that he has been disabled since 

age 37 by diabetes and diabetic neuropathy. He has a high school education and two 

years of college. From 1992 to 2004, Williams performed clerical work for a title 

company, traveling the state to close loans. The ALJ found that Williams retains the 

Case: 2:11-cv-00822-MHW-MRA Doc #: 18 Filed: 09/24/12 Page: 1 of 6 PAGEID #: <pageID>
ability to perform jobs having medium exertional demands, including his former job as a 

loan closer which was skilled but sedentary. 

In his statement of specific errors, Plaintiff argues the ALJ: (1) failed to follow the 

treating physician rule; (2) failed to properly evaluate Mr. Williams's credibility; and (3) 

relied on flawed vocational expert testimony. Magistrate Judge Abel recommended the 

Court affirm the decision of the ALJ in all respects. Plaintiff's objections mirror his initial 

arguments. 

First, Plaintiff argues that the ALJ and Magistrate Judge erred in rejecting the 

opinion of Dr. Sheri Hart, Williams's treating neurologist at the Ohio State University 

Hospitals. Plaintiff argues that Dr. Hart's opinion was based on clinical and objective 

findings of extremity pain and numbness, dizziness/loss of balance, and QSART 

testing. Further, Plaintiff argues that it should not matter that no physician's notes 

stated Plaintiff was disabled because office notes are not kept in anticipation of 

litigation, but for the purposes of recording the patient's symptoms, diagnosis, and 

treatment. Finally, Plaintiff argues the ALJ erred in failing to weigh Dr. Hart's opinions 

under the 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(d)(2)-(6) factors. 

Dr. Hart's opinion is that Plaintiff was limited in his daily activities by pain and 

lightheadedness related to his neuropathy and that he was unlikely to ever recover. Dr. 

Hart opined Plaintiff could sit 4 hours and stand or walk for 2 hours in a 8-hour work 

day, could occasionally lift, but not carry, up to 10 pounds, and would be absent from 

work 2-3 times a month. 

The ALJ gave this opinion little weight because it was "not entirely supported by 

the objective evidence of record or even Dr. Hart's own treatment notes." For example, 

Case No. 2:11--cv-822 Page 2 of 6 

Case: 2:11-cv-00822-MHW-MRA Doc #: 18 Filed: 09/24/12 Page: 2 of 6 PAGEID #: <pageID>
in July 2009, Dr. Hart released Plaintiff from further follow-up because he indicated he 

was happy with the control of his symptoms. The Magistrate Judge described the 

objective medical evidence on which Dr. Hart based her conclusion and determined it 

did not demonstrate severity or frequency of symptoms. The Magistrate Judge also 

noted that Williams frequently reported an improvement in some or all of his symptoms. 

The Magistrate Judge properly concluded that the ALJ gave sufficient reasons 

for rejecting Dr. Hart's opinion. No matter what other 20 C.F .R. § 404.1527(d)(2)-(6) 

factors weighed in favor of giving Dr. Hart's opinion credence, Dr. Hart's opinion was 

not supported by the objective medical evidence and therefore did not need to be given 

controlling weight. Only when the treating doctor's opinion "is well-supported by 

medically acceptable clinical and laboratory diagnostic techniques and is not 

inconsistent with the other substantial evidence in [the] case record" must the 

Commissioner give it controlling weight. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(d)(2). 

As to credibility, Plaintiff argues that his daily activities are not so extensive as to 

support the ALJ's or the Magistrate Judge's findings that his activities were inconsistent 

with being totally disabled. Plaintiff also argues the Magistrate Judge should not have 

relied on potentially conflicting statements about alcohol and marijuana use. In 

addition, Plaintiff argues that the ALJ improperly used boilerplate language to state 

Plaintiff's symptoms were inconsistent with the residual functional capacity (ability to 

work) assessment. 

The ALJ relied on the fact Williams worked as a part-time loan closer, drove his 

mother to and from work, flew to Florida and spent four days there, ran errands, visited 

friends and family, and watched television to support a finding that Plaintiff's description 

Case No. 2:11-cv-822 Page 3 of 6 

Case: 2:11-cv-00822-MHW-MRA Doc #: 18 Filed: 09/24/12 Page: 3 of 6 PAGEID #: <pageID>
of his symptoms was not credible. These activities, though moderate, are consistent 

with the ability to perform a job with medium exertional demands. 

In addition, Magistrate Judge Abel was free to note the inconsistencies in 

Plaintiff's self-reporting on his drug and alcohol use. For example, although Williams 

mostly told physicians that he was a light or moderate drinker, he has three driving 

under the influence ("DUI") convictions, the most recent of which was the weekend 

before the administrative hearing. Williams told at least one physician that he does not 

use alcohol. Although the ALJ noted the inconsistencies may not have been malicious, 

the ALJ still relied on the inconsistencies as proof that Plaintiffs self-reports may not be 

all together reliable. 

Furthermore, the ALJ did not simply put forth boilerplate language when 

assessing Plaintiff's credibility. Although some of the language in the ALJ's opinion 

mirrors the "template" language rejected by the Seventh Circuit in Bjornson v. Astrue, 

671 F.3d 640, 645--46 (7th Cir. 2012), unlike the ALJ in Bjornson the ALJ in Plaintiff's 

case goes on to explain the credibility determination in greater detail. 

In addition to the general lack of objective evidence to support 

his subject complaints, there are other considerations that 

weigh against the claimant's overall credibility. 

The claimant's daily activities, as described earlier in this 

decision, are not consistent with the level of persistence of 

symptoms alleged, and they are not credibly restricted to the 

extent that the claimant would be precluded from the range of 

work assessed herein. 

Further, despite alleging significant shoulder pain, the record 

reflects that the claimant was discontinued from physical 

therapy due to lack of follow-up (Exhibit 1 OF, p. 6). 

Case No. 2:11--cv-822 Page 4 of 6 

Case: 2:11-cv-00822-MHW-MRA Doc #: 18 Filed: 09/24/12 Page: 4 of 6 PAGEID #: <pageID>
The record also contains inconsistent and exaggerated 

statements that further detract from the claimant's overall 

credibility. For example, the claimant was not entirely honest 

in regards to his alcohol and marijuana use. The record 

reflects that the claimant advised the consultative evaluator 

that he did not use or abuse any substances (Exhibit 6F, p.1 ). 

There are other records which show he reported occasional 

use and also denied use (see e.g. Exhibits 9F, p. 2 and 14F, 

p. 15). 

Although the inconsistent/exaggerated information provided by 

the claimant may. not be the result of a conscious intention to 

mislead, nevertheless, such statements suggest that the 

information provided by the claimant generally may not be 

entirely reliable. 

R. 17-18. The ALJ's credibility determination is supported by substantial evidence in 

the record. 

Finally, Plaintiff argues that the vocational expert's testimony was flawed 

because it was based on the ALJ's flawed residual functional capacity findings. Plaintiff 

asserts that the ALJ failed to cite any medical opinion that supported her conclusion 

that Williams could perform work having medium exertional demands. 

Substantial evidence supports the ALJ's residual functional capacity 

assessment. The ALJ properly considered whether the clinical examination findings 

and laboratory tests in the record supported Plaintiff's allegations. The record does not 

document severe symptoms or complaints indicating that Plaintiff has greater limitations 

than those found by the ALJ. Because there is substantial evidence supporting the 

ALJ's residual functional capacity findings, the ALJ did not err by relying on the 

testimony of the vocational expert based on those findings. 

Case No. 2:11-cv-822 Page 5 of 6 

Case: 2:11-cv-00822-MHW-MRA Doc #: 18 Filed: 09/24/12 Page: 5 of 6 PAGEID #: <pageID>
The Court DENIES Plaintiff's objections and ADOPTS the Report and 

Recommendation. The decision of the Commissioner is AFFIRMED. The Clerk of 

Court shall enter judgment for defendant. 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 

Case No. 2:11-cv-822 Page 6 of 6 

Case: 2:11-cv-00822-MHW-MRA Doc #: 18 Filed: 09/24/12 Page: 6 of 6 PAGEID #: <pageID>